State bites woman

Wednesday’s news that an off-duty police dog bit a 60-year-old woman has prompted an attack on the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act by a Boston law firm and an interesting debate in the blogosphere about how much, if anything, the victim could collect in court.

Eric J. Parker, of the personal-injury firm Parker Scheer in Boston, writes on his firm’s blog that the commonwealth-owned police dog is covered by the Tort Claims Act, which caps damages against the state at $100,000:

“The $100,000 limit, a figure established by Massachusetts law-makers long ago, would not begin to compensate a person who suffers debilitating injuries as a result of a dog attack. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts legislature has shown no interest in updating this antiquated law. In more ‘civilized’ States, such as New York, the liability of a governmental body (such as a city or town) is treated no differently than an individual charged with the very same negligence. Had the victim of the Mattapan attack been the owner of a dog who attacked a Massachusetts police officer (an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) the owner of the dog would face unlimited liability for the injuries suffered by that police officer. The $100,000 cap simply would not apply. This law is outdated, unfair to victims, and should be updated.”

The website Universal Hub, which linked to Parker Scheer’s post, is hosting an impromptu discussion about whether or not that limit will hold, with one commenter guessing that “City of Boston is going to give this woman whatever she wants (within reason)” and another wagering that she could be entitled to “7 figures.”

But Parker tells Lawyers Weekly that those expectations likely will be dashed. “This woman will never see that in all probability because the commonwealth is able to hide behind this statute,” he says. “This is a statute that is a relic. Year after year we watch that same figure control. You’re constantly telling clients, ‘There’s nothing we can do about it.’”

Parker’s firm recently won a $255,000 verdict for a dog-bite case before an Essex Superior Court jury, so he knows that a similar injury is worth more than $100,000 at trial.

But he also saw the restrictions of the Tort Claims cap at their most extreme recently when his firm brokered a settlement of just $600,000 in May for the family of a young boy killed by the collapse of a heavy gate on a school’s property in Methuen.

“This is the death of a son,” he says. “After attorneys’ fees and expenses, there’s virtually no recovery.”

Interestingly, there is an exception to the Tort Claims Act: claims of “serious bodily injury” against the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. That is thanks to the lobbying efforts of tort lawyers and the Massachusetts Bar Association earlier this year